POLL – Current 35mm offerings - POTN members preference

I know there are quite a few posts on this topic, but I did not see this as a poll.

This poll only applies to the current (as of the end of May 2013) 35mm FL with an f/1.4 aperture with Canon mounts. (I only know of three that fit this.)

For curiosity, now that many have picked up, tried, researched, or reviewed the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (it has been almost a half a year since it was released) what is your preference on the 35mm f/1.4 lens offerings. And has picked up an enormous fan base.

The curiosity at least partially stems from picking up an excellent used copy of the 35L.

Sigma is the better lens. Its also cheaper new compared to a used 35L.

I would get the Zeiss but since the Sigma is so much cheaper with better IQ, lighter weight and autofocus it's the better choice.

I would stick with the 35L. No surprises with that lens and it will hold its value over time if you take care of it.

If you need AF then Sigma will edge out the 35L in terms of wide open sharpness. The focus inconsistencies with Sigma under different lighting have been reported but I would think it's far less than reality.

1) Sigma 35/1.4
2) Canon 35L

Now, if you don't mind MF then there are other options available.

Zeiss comes in two different specs, the f2 and the f1.4. The different in price is quite noticeable. I have no experience with Samyang/Bower/Rokinon but the images seemed tack sharp.

Personally it's a matter of preference. If I didn't have the 50L and have the focal length covered with the 24-70L II I would have probably gone with the Sigma 35/1.4. But since I do, Zeiss seemed the logical choice.

35 f2 IS

I currently use the Canon 28mm 1.8 but looking for something a bit longer and faster.
I was all set to buy a 35L (probably used) but now I can get the Sigma for the same price. Quite likely I'll get that one, but I've decided to upgrade my body to a 6D or 5DIII first. On my budget those are all pretty hefty prices, so taking a few months for it

Tried the Sigma, ordered it and will get it next week.
Cheaper than the 35L with at least the same IQ and a bit more expensive than the 35mm f/2 IS but with a better aperture (IMO).
The perfect choice.

Wow! I must be the odd-man-out. I recently bought the old non-IS version of the 35 f/2 for use as a fast-normal lens on my 60D. I tried it, on my 5D, at a restaurant/dinner party last week and was really pleased with the results. Shot at f/2 and f/2.2, mostly. Got wide enough to get the other side of the table, enough DOF to get everyone mostly in focus, and focused fast enough to be useful. Great lens for $250! An f/1.4 lens may have gathered more light, but DOF would have been a problem. Now I need something along those lines for my 60D; a fast wide prime. I had a 24 2.8, but it was too soft at 2.8 and too slow at f/4.

Have Zeiss, want to get Sigma because of IQ (on par with Zeiss) and AF and much lighter...

I have Zeiss too, and I love it when I use it.

Problem is - I find myself rarely using it. That's why it's up for sale.

I have the Sigma because I did not want to pay more money for a lens with less performance.

Had C35 and sold it for S35, couldn't be happier.

Have Zeiss 1.4/35 & 24L II. Not using Zeiss much this day but I keep it for sure.
Never use Sigma or 35L before. But may get a 35L II if it ever comes out.

Had the Zeiss 1.4/35, had the 35L, have the Sigma 35mm f/1.4... that kinda answers what I think of the 3. That being said the lens that's been making my toes curl lately is the Zeiss Planar 1.7/50 T*. I paid $125 for it in near mint condition. It's by far the best bang for the buck lens I've every bought (no, it's not the best lens I've ever bought but the 24-70 II & 70-200 II aren't 15x better ).